About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 25
CSPAN 9
CSPAN2 6
FBC 5
CNNW 4
KCSM (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 70
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 70 (some duplicates have been removed)
and corporations. yet my friends on the other side my friends continue pushing this approach in the name of deficit reduction, but their own leadership admitted we don't have a debt crisis in the country. the architect, congressman paul ryan, said we don't have a debt crisis. speaker boehner said it's not an immediate problem. why should we enact this budget while democrats have a balanced approach to protect the middle class. why should we pass a budget that gets 66% of its cuts from programs for people of low or moderate income. why should we pass a budget that cuts pell grants that helps students or cuts the snap program that helps to feed 48 million people to give a $200,000 tax cut to millionaires? the budget put forward by the congressional black caucus continues the snap program to prevent americans from going hungry. while at the same time, reducing the deficit by $2.8 trillion over 10 years. the american people know we can't cut our way to prosperity, nor can we succeed by pursuing the same failed policies that undermine our economic recovery. the congressional black caucus budget offers a
federal revenues should be changed, deficits, public debt and debt held by the public. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the following members of my budget committee staff be granted full floor access for the duration of the consideration of s. con. res. -- john rider and rick jones. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the period of debate for economic goals and policy under section 305-b of the congressional budget act occur on march 21 at a time to be determined by the two managers. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. we are now on the floor of the senate with the budget. i want to thank my counterpart, mr. sessions, for all his work and his staff's work and my staff's to get us to the point here that we are debating this bill and this amendment. senator sessions has been very gracious in working with us. we have gotten to this. we obviously have differences of opinion, but i want to commend
2011 budget specifically targeted federal grants for first responders as a way of cutting the deficit. >> he's taking advantage of a sad fact in this country. if you live in illinois in a part of chicago that is fluent, even the gun violence taking place in chicago, in your very city, doesn't impact you. so you may not think that urban crime is a reason to change gun control laws, because it doesn't affect you personally. you can literally live away from where people are kill and not have gun violence affect you. and gun control laws wouldn't get at that crime. maybe the trafficking piece, it's a much more complicated issue. wayne lapierre is taking advantage of that. to your point, it's not as if congress is trying to do anything about that. not trying to do the things they could do about urban crime. >> mental health, a lot of that is aided by the affordable care act. and governor, joy makes a good point. if you look at support for stricter gun laws among african-americans, 78% of them support stronger controls, compared with 48% of caucasians, support for stricter gun laws among ur
and leave a nearly $6 trillion hole in the deficit that would lead to tax increases for middle-income families. that isn't balance. that is total imbalance. at the same time, republicans propose cutting $3.3 trillion from programs for people with low and moderate incomes, including hundreds of billions of dollars for food nutrition and medicaid programs. so i want to end by asking the republicans when they come and talk about their tax proposals to name a specific that they would address. it's not in the republican budget. name one, name two, name three. otherwise, it's worse than empty. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: with that, mr. chairman, i yield three members to the gentleman from indiana, r. rokita. mr. rokita: i thank chairman ryan in bringing this budget to the floor. i rise in high support of it. i also am very proud, one of the highest honors i have had in my short time here to serve on this committee. not because of chairman ryan only, but because of the members. by members, i mean republican and democrat mem
and better jobs for the american people. after all the budgets that never balance and record deficits, job creation, we would be coming off the four best years in modmodern american history, because we had four $1 trillion deficits in a row. another that will, quote, only be $850 billion this year. that's yielded us less than 2% growth a year. we all know if we took the number of americans that have left the work force and recalculated unemployment rate, it wouldn't be 7.8%, it would be about 10.5%. the path that my friends on the other side recommend doesn't work. and the balance in both the r.s.c. budget and ryan budget are much more promising course. they achieve that balance by not raising taxes, while not raising taxes. i think that's very important, too. we certainly aren't undertaxed in this country. my friends on the other side clearly believe that we are. they are going to offer multiple tax increases in all their budgets. i like the budget that does not require tax increases. finally, both these budgets, the republican study committee budget and the republican budget, come to gri
budget. they now claim their budget would eliminate the deficit in 2023. and house budget committee chairman paul ryan has even said that it doesn't really matter how their budget eliminates the deficit. mr. president, americans across our country who will feel the impact of the choices we make in the coming weeks and months feel that it does matter. so while some of my republican colleagues would probably prefer not to hear about it, i think that the impact of the house republican budget is a crucial part of this debate, and we owe it to the american people to put our opinions on the record. now we've come a long way, mr. president, but there are still far too many americans today who are unemployed or underemployed, which is why our senate budget's first priority is boosting our economic recovery. speaker boehner has actually agreed with president obama that our debt does not present -- quote -- "an immediate crisis." so you might think the house budget would phase in cuts responsibly so we can protect our fragile recovery. well, instead the house republican budget would do seriou
differences. let's take a look at them. the gop plan would cut the deficit $4.6 trillion over ten years, all through spending cuts. the democratic plan would cut the deficit $1.8 trillion half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes. senator corker, let me start with you will senate republicans accept a tax increase if you get serious entitlement reform and cuts? >> i think senate republicans and all republicans want to see a 75 year solution to entitlements and i think republicans are joined in wanting to see tax reform so to the extent that generates revenues and how that is scored obviously that will be debated as we move ahead but i think all of us understand the real issues driving the deficit is in our o country are the entitlements. we want to see these available for generations to come. >> chris: but real quickly you you understand the price for entitlement reform in any deal would be a tax increase. would you buy that and what do you think are the prospects there willle be a deal sometime before this summer? >> well, again, i think there by the way is a chance on a deal. i
deficits with no end in sight doesn't lead to prosperity, doesn't lead to growth. it leads to financial ruin. i'm also the father of four great kids, two in college and two in high school. they know that as a family they have to plan ahead for the future. we need to create a budget and then live within our means. these are the same principles that my parents past down to me. -- passed down to me. these are the values that montana's families live by each and every day. those values are exemplified in montana's own state legislature. we're the only constitutionally -- where the only constitutionally required duletty is passing a budget. in -- duty is passing a budget. in fact, when they adjourn in a little over a montana, they will have given montana a balanced budget, just like they did last year and the year before and the year before that. it seems simple -- live within your means, spend no more than you take in, but it's not so easy here in washington. right now we are presented with two very different visions for our country, two visions that will lead to two very different outcomes
level. secondarily, if you say deficit reduction, the partisan are leeched out. we are talking about whether it will work to balance the budget. if along the way 35 million become uninsured, that's sad but we don't talk about it because cbo didn't mention it in the score. that's the great trick of paul ryan to recognize if you only talk about budget deficit, where does your budget put the deficit 20, 30 years from now, the amount of things you sneak in under that cloak that you can never put into the conversation in a serious way in normal times is tremendous. that's the central political innovation of his career. >> the favorite thing in the accounting discussion is compare the government to a family, saying you couldn't -- well, families do run debt, they cannot afford to buy their houses for cash, so they have a thing called a mortgage, which is the national debt of the family in effect. they try to oversimplify everything in this, but is there some break through in this point of republicans saying you know what, the debt isn't such a serious problem? >> there's no break through.
deficit by almost $6 trillion in 10 years. reduce ay budget would little under $2 trillion in 10 years. >> what other groups are offering their own budget plan docks water they likely to focus on? >> -- who will be issuing their own budget plans? budget will be similar to patty murray's budget in the senate. increases,ave tax but neither would balance the budget in 10 years. also the congressional black caucus and the congressional progressive caucus will be introducing budget. it's possible a ryan version could be introduced in the senate. >> what is likely to happen in the senate this week? >> it will be democrats making the case for the patty murray budget. convince someto democratic senators who may not support that budget. they will have to sell it to democratic senators as well as republicans. no republicans are likely to vote for the budget. they will be calling for more spending cuts, no tax increases, balancing the budget sooner. >> republicans say this to be the first time in four years they have agreed to put forward a plan. why is this your difference? are a number of diffe
to reduce the deficit. unfortunately, rather than seriously considering the credible path that we have presented in our budget plan, some republicans have decided to play some games with the numbers, and they just are not telling the truth. instead of subtracting the sequestration replacement portion in the investment package from the $975 billion in total revenue, they're trying to say that you should somehow add them all together. they are taking one side of the ledger, combining it with the other side of the ledger and coming to some conclusion that makes absolutely no sense to us. mr. president, this would be like handing over $2 to buy a cup of coffee and having someone say, well the price was actually $2 plus the value of that coffee. it doesn't make any sense. and, by the way, you don't have to take my word for it. fact checkers and reporters have called this claim false and a step too far. and "the washington post" fact correcter even gave it two pinocchios. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a story from "the washington post" on this inaccurate clai
at some of the people to solve the leadership deficit, chris christie, marco rubio, we have a cast of characters for the 2016 race that's different than the cast of characters in the 2012 race, so i think there's a little silver lining in that for republicans. >> let's listen to what jay carney had to say about the new republican report. >> the best way to increase support with the public for your party is to embrace policies to public supports. >> howard fineman, jay carney makes sense every once in a while. >> and he did right there. and this report from rnc read like a soviet five-year plan. we will have more production and we are going to reach out to the ethnic minorities that we don't understand. it had very little relationship to reality, except there was a distant sound of their realization that for example on gay rights, they're way, way wrong. hillary clinton today came out in favor of supporting gay marriage. young people in the rnc's own report, young people are the ones leading the way on that. i'll give reince priebus credit for saying in that report that the issue of
to the conservative rationale for budget can you tell us when conservatives get more honest about the debt and deficit. a conservative columnist says about the new ryan budget, it sacrificed seriousness for seriousness by promising to reach budgetary balance, not over the long term as budgets 1.0 and 2.0 did, but in a ten year window. this is not going to happen, and more importantly there's no reason why it needs to happen. modest deficits are perfectly compatible with fiscal responsibility. talk about singing a new tune. and the conservative think tank, the american enterprise institute asks why does the budget need to balance in ten years? debt reduction doesn't require balance, just that the economy is growing faster than the debt, while the plan does put the debt to gdp ratio on a downward trajectory, it probably doesn't need to be quite as steep. ezra klein, this is a big deal, and you're here on this show to prove it is a big deal. you would never come out this late if this wasn't a huge deal. >> absolutely not. >> this is huge. the debt is the reason we have to do all these terrible things to
congressman paul ryan a budget. >> this budget more than just balanced. >> can we reduce our deficit and debt and still help those who are neediest in america. can we have a safety net that survives and still reduce the deficit? paul ryan says no. >> at least budgets are passing around here for a change. the government's going to have to learn to do more with less, it's not the government's money, it's the people's money. >> the senate democrats are considering a number of balances ever-- >> and house committee chair paul ryan telling us republicans and democrats are still world's apart. well, that is an understatement. we saw that just an hour ago. the democratic-led senate defeating the ryan house budget 40-59. so is there any hope left? here is congressman paul ryan. >> great to see you. >> great it to see you again. >> greta: i want to talk about the budget that passed today, i imagine you're happy. >> we're very happy. we passed a balanced budget and it's important we owe the country a reasonable plan and grows the economy. balancing the budget is not just a statistical exercise it's the
% in three years and the deficit by force of $4 trillion and strengthen medicare and medicaid and you'd be asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. how do you get 7 million new jobs in one year in your budget? money onu are spending infrastructure. we have a $2.20 trillion in infrastructure deficit according to the american society of civil engineers three allows people to work on roads, bridges, etc.. you put people to work building schools and other necessary things. you give money to the states. states have laid off 700,000 cops and firefighters and teachers. by doing all this, you stimulate the economy by putting aggregate demand. what do you consider fair share when it comes to wealthy taxpayers? >> we propose to different things. we propose to close tax loopholes. - indid the our budget close many we will of the corporate tax loopholes. he sablan the profits home by taxing it at 3% -- you say bring them profits home by testing it at 3%. we say no. money here and through accounting tricks make it appear as if it is in the cayman islands. we will tax it all. but he should get a
of the simpson-bowles plan. the plan reduced the deficit through the balance approach that clued additional targets cuts and also revenue from closing a lot of the special interest tax breaks for very wealthy people, tax breaks which mitt romney and paul ryan talked been on the campaign trail. >> neil: they were without raising the overall rate. now we have the rates raised. so republicans talk of a need for a trigger. they might go along with this tax break stuff and all their closing the loopholes, that they did agree it's sort of wasting time and money and the tax code, but you guys have then got to, as part of the trigger, agree simultaneously to these cuts you talked about. what do you make of that? >> well, first of all, the difference is republicans have never said they're willing to close some of those tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit. which is what the bipartisan -- >> neil: i got a couple on you. i suspect no angel in the ranks of either party. but they did say that they would be open to closing these loopholes but without this being the only negotiating point
and deficit. i voted against the solution for the fiscal cliff because the headlines would say the fiscal cliff is avoided, and there were three elements. we did not avoid any of them. we raise taxes on every american. we put sequestration down the road and we did zero on deficit problems. we are facing total economic chaos if we are not careful. host: republican caller. pennsylvania. caller: in response to the fiscal cliff, i find him very -- i do not know, i do not believe what he is saying. he is talking about a fiscal cliff, but you want us to accept the people here illegally and give them something they have not earned. i do not understand what republicans are doing. i am a conservative. i do not want amnesty. i do not want them here. host: you might have missed what the congressman said earlier. i will let him respond. guest: what she is saying is she does not want amnesty, and under president bush he had a strong amnesty plan and i said i would not back it. total amnesty like the one president reagan did will cause a lot of problems here and i think we need the workers. obviously,
for that, because we had the great recession, and we needed to engage in some deficit spending to offset that demand contraction. historically the debt goes up in periods like this. in world war ii, it breached 100%, then a few years later it was 50%. the debt is expected to start coming down within a few years. over the long term, there are real pressures on the debt through health care costs. that's what i would tell mr. penny. >> excellent. that's very helpful. josh, the president last week was secured on the right for suggesting there was no dead crisis in american. later in the week this is what speaker boehner and paul ryan had to say. take a listen. >> is he right, that we don't have an immediate crisis. >> we do not have an immediate debt crisis. >> we do not have a debt crisis right now, but we see it's coming. it's irrefutably happening. >> what are they doing by repeatedly fanning into flame the notion of a debt crisis, when they themselves when asked directly say exactly what jared said. in the immediate short term, it is not a pressing issue. >> it's because it's instrumenta
the reason why there isn't any wiggle room, because one, cutting the deficit, democrats propose cutting it $1.85 trillion, half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes. the republican plan, paul ryan plan, would cut the deficit $4.6 trillion in ten years and includes repealing obamacare. the hope going through the legislative process they might be able to find compromise to strike some sort of deal. >> we need to put americans back to work. that's our first priority. deficit reduction i would put as the second priority and one that is coupled with economic growth the so i think we can do both. make sure we have deficit reduction but don't cut too much too fast. >> reporter: bottom line, bill, american people are seeing this over and over again. republicans and democrats fighting on both sides of the aisle and perhaps, they can come together for a grand bargain but just doesn't appear to be the case right now. as they grapple with the budget, keep in mind that two weeks away they have to come up with a continuing resolution by march 27. bill: as ryan says, at least there is baseline f
trillion in debt. we have deficits we can't even wrap our arms around, and they want more of your money. if you were a financial advisor that put you $1 million in debt and ripped through your college savings for your children and all of your checking account and said, just give me more money and we'll solve the problem, would you do it? absolutely not. more than jobs, though, we are also working to save medicare and social security, the commitments that we have made to the american people. so let's take a look here at the big picture. here's a budget breakdown of where we are at right now. look, your eyes are glazed over and we start talking about the trillions of dollars that we spend, but let's take a look at what you pay versus what you expect. this big blue part right here? that's on auto pilot. no adults have come to the table to talk about where we are at today and how to actually save your social security and medicare and medicaid in this big blue part. we are doing that today. house republicans in balancing the budget. but this is what you expect from the federal government. yo
. >> let me quote dick cheney, who said ronald reagan taught us that deficits do not matter. dick cheney was wrong. he was wrong then and now. of course deficits matter, but any one of you who supported the bush plans has no right to speak. i helped bill clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. why? because we had good economic times. in good economic times, you pay down the deficit, but reagan and bush did not, and in bad you have to stimulate in the near term, as thank god president obama is doing. we democrats will balance the budget once again. >> paul, which is more important to america's pursuit of happiness -- which is more dangerous, excuse me, than a 357 magnum -- >> in my home you would find 17 guns and no cans of soda pop. i have the right wing position on the giant drink soda thing. i do not like the idea, and i think bloomberg is a fine man, but i do not like government telling us what size to buy today. this one, i am with tucker and most of you. i have the right wing position on gun safety. i have the same position as ronald reagan, who was for a waiting period befo
. there is disagreement over whether you could continue to run the deficits. so, you know -- i don't want to say there's no disagreement. people do disagree over this, and that's the problem that washington hat right now. everyone says we have to cut, we have to cut. that's the problem with the murray budget. it goes way too far toward the republicans. if unfortunate the sharp debate that schumer is talking about, debate the progressive budget, which actually adds spending and stimulus against the ryan plan. >> we haven't cut spending, have we? seriously. can we at least try that and see whether or not all of this -- but that's not cutting spending. you're still spending the money, judd forestalling where you will make the payment. >> it's still growing. >> spending in this country is still growing. it's a contingent and sane argument to make that we need to address it from that side first. we gave you the $600 billion in new taxes, you want more, you want more spending. >> paul ryan weaves those cuts into his budget. >> so let's do policy and we with squawk. on policy you're going to have to come to
deficit. for students in detroit problems with the education system are being magnified by that community's economic troubles. if you look statewide a quarter of michigan children under 17 were living in poverty in 2011. compare that to detroit where the number is more than twice that much. it is 57%, folks. nearly two in three detroit children 5 and under are below the poverty line. msnbc's correspondent joins us live from detroit where she'll cohost a summit on education today and a student town hall tomorrow. those numbers are frightening and daunting. >> they really are startling numbers. i've got my notebook with me because i'm going to school today, chris. it has a lot of people worried and concerned and working to change the dynamics of those numbers. that's what we'll be talking about here. many people are also concerned about the fact, the elephant in the room we can't dismiss that come monday the city of detroit will be under the auspices of an emergency financial manager. people should also know for the past four years detroit schools have been under emergency management and in
, this is all washington talks abou about, which is deficits and budgets. and you could argue that, in terms of the goalposts, we're arguing in and around the rand paul budget or paul ryan budget. and there was very little news of the house caucus budget. which should be the flag around which democrats rally, given the stream opposition. >> the progressive caucus budget is the most responsible budget that's been presented. i think even more than patty murray's budget. the senate democratic budget. but you're right. it doesn't get attention, because inside the beltway, the fixation is on deficit reduction, and that's by conservatives who somehow buy the idea that government is going to crush us if we don't drastically cut now. i don't think they want to kus as much as rand paul wants to cut. and you were right to highlight that part of his budget, increasing the retirement age and privatizing medicare, because i think that's the part of his budget that's going to really crash his 2016 hopes. but to get back to 2014, you know, it's going to be up to obama, particularly, to lead the charge. he'
that you can cut the deficit in 10 years while simultaneously increasing defense spending and cutting 35 to 28, as from mitt romney proposed, but 39 to 25%. it is just a pipe dream. >> are we ever going to settle this thing, lois? >> and then we might. i think the charm offensive is working a little bit. mitch mcconnell is speaking well of the president in saying that we have useful meetings. his biggest problem might end up being the democrats, trying to move them through some sort of entitlement reform. >> evan? >> maybe obama has got some secret plans to, but i don't see it. this is too little too late. if he was serious about a grand bargain he would have started in november. instead, he behaved like a political hack for months, and then his polls go down and he says, okay, i guess i got to show i'm being cooperative, so he has dinner a couple of times. it is not. getting. >> charles? >> and has not even produced a budget, which by law was due last month. he says it will be out the week of august 8 bid what the senate democrats have done, and these they have produced a budget, first
about deficit reduction that it is a misplaced focus, that the real priority should be on job creation. but it seems that too many people in congress who just think the most important thing is to cut cut cut. so is the deficit really the most thant thing? is the deficit out of control, or is job korea payings more important? >> chris van hollen is right. we have over 40 million american families living in poverty. these numbers carry with them a really human toll. so if we want to be looking at the long-term success of the u.s. economy, then balancing the budget in the short term is a really short-term mistake. >> bill: in other words the best thing we could do to grow the economy is put people back to work. >> yes, and make the sorts of investments that will get people to work today, take a look at pre-k. you are not only employing a lot more full-time teachers but at the same time you are investing in future workers. >> bill: how can it be that you have got -- again, the dough -- these new record highs, corporate profits record high financial institutions are back
's plan calls for us getting out of the deficits in ten years. senator paul said, i can do it in five. what do you think of that? >> i think he could and he has put forward plans in the past that show he can. and like i said, going back to the communication factor. he knows how out of control the government is, whether it's sending money to people who are burning our flag or giving money to college students to come up with a menu how we'll eat on mars, and he has an ability to communicate with young people and voters as a whole what is important and what isn't. and we have seen him become a hybrid. he is a republican but has a libertarian base and ising which that republicans have been striving for but hasn't found the right candidate and right now rand paul looks like he is on his way. >> neil: obviously ruffled john mccain's feathers, and john mccain kind of apologized for how far this went. react to this. >> in an interview i said that senator paul and senator cruz were whack obirds. that was anyone appropriate and i apologize to them for saying that because i respect them both a
taxes. i thought the increased taxes would maybe go to taking care of some of the deficit. no. it's simply going to continually expanding the size and scope of dot government, and those taxes are on families, just like obamacare is placing taxes on family. you do not hear the republican leadership saying we're the defenders of the american family, of businesses. we want to unleash this economy so that it will absolutely grow. by the way, about that easter egg hunt. why, if they're going to haste do they even put it on the tickets they were threatening to stall the whole thing? that would be the first time in the history of the easter egg roll that it would have been cancelled for politics. the only other time it's been cancelled, it's for war. it's a stunning thing but all too justify this administration's temper tantrum over wanting to have a complete free rein to spend as much as they want. >> neil: eggs actually. they don't know. i'm done. i'm done. thank you very much. this will be our lead issue tonight. why this guy who did this dance is really wigging out right now. david w
. it is balanced in terms of making sure we move to responsibly managing our debt and deficit, getting our deficit down to less than 3% of the gdp, as every economist in the bowls simps simpson, all the gang of six have focused us on doing, but also make sure we make that investments to keep our middle class strong. >> the point of our budget is to make sure that we show that we have a ten-year plan, if we can put it into place, we will get our economy moving again, we will begin to manage our debt, and we will quit doing this management by crisis where every time we turn around, the republicans say they'll shut the government down if we don't cut more. we need to have a responsible plan. that is what i'm putting forward. it's what the democrats are supporting today, and i'm very proud of it. i think this shows the american people with can manage our country wisely. >>> before you go to the floor, i wanted to quickly ask about the assault weapon ban. harry reid has decided not to put it in the gun legislation. dianne feinstein is angry, deeply disappointed, still wants a shot at it. what do you th
, they want to cut the budget deficits and cut defense spending and simplify the tax code and lower tax rates. in a deal with president obama they could get the first four, more deficit reduction, protect defense, the democratic president would get some cover in cutting medicare and social security and they could simplify the tax code by taking out expenditures. they are now saying they want none of those things and also not going to get the tax rates and keep the sequester and not have a deal. i've asked a lot of them to walk me through the reasoning here and honestly never come to an answer i understand a little bit. >> does that mean they're post policy. even some things that seem like constants don't actually a matter them, it's pure politics, just positioning themselves vis-a-vis the president and not interested in a particular outcome for the country? >> i would like to have an answer where that isn't true. i really would. i've been trying to find it. i'm sure part is i'm not smart enough to do so or found the right people to have spoken to them. it's hard to come up with one. we can go
class. at least we have a budget now and at least democrats now can show that deficit reduction can be done responsible. responsibly. >> the lack of a bunt has been an effective talking point for republicans. why do you think they haven't reached an agreement? >> because they're democrats. they have a hard time reaching an agreement about anything. that's why they're democrats. the progressive caucus shows that it is possible to reduce the budget deficit by taking even more away from big corporations reducing corporate welfare to an even larger extent reigning in tax loopholes, and so-called tax expenditures. the democratic budget and senate budget is a very good place to begin. i think the progressive caucus's budget is much better. >> analysts are saying this budget is to the left of obama. many on the left would say we should have expected that. does this give the president the opportunity to bring people together and get some sort of grand bargain by throwing things less liked under the bus. >> there is not going to be a grand bargain. the right wing controls the republican part
, taxes, spending and deficits. and the notion that they're going to somehow come together, there's really no, no, i guess, carrot for them to go after here. >> and then they go home for two weeks. >> sure. >> and the question is are they going to hear anything from their constituents that's going to move anybody. i don't know. >> i think that they're not. and the best chance that they had to potentially hear about it was with the potential for a government shutdown, which has now been averted. so again, back to this new pace rhine of these big debates over real issues that are kind of going nowhere. and a new baseline that incidentally it's interesting because their stopgap spending bill that was passed yesterday did mark something of a breakthrough in that the appropriators in the house and the senate, the bipartisan leaderships thereof were able to come together and come up with a spending plan that keeps the government solvent and keeps it operating. and so i think that now we are going to see the appropriators get, you know, being able to get together hopefully and work out these, you
, immigration and guns and what to do about the deficit. >> don't forget two other prominent spokes people, the president and vice president. they care a lot about it and have been quiet of late. i expect to see a big push between of two of them before the vote. >> the lack of courage in the united states is asstountounast. >> it's amazing. >> no one is coming to take your gun. no one is coming to take your gun. >> it's amazing. it's amazing. when you look at the fact that we are talking about a simple thing like background checks. people are dying every day. a baby killed in -- >> in pennsylvania. >> in brunswick, georgia. we are arguing about background checks is almost ununbelievable. surreal. >> background checks have 90% of support among the american people last check. >>> senator bob casey of pennsylvania will join us on the set coming up and leigh gallagher and representative rick mulvaney will weigh in. our good friend michael hainey will have a preview of the "gq" magazine. bill karins, what is up? >> schoolhouse are cancelled around baltimore and washington, d.c. a lot of delays.
? and also the idea that the federal government can't have a deficit, it's crazy. the republicans have somehow adopted this and sold the american people that the most important thing facing this congress and country is to balance the federal budget. no, it's not. how about creating jobs? how about repairing our infrastructure? repairing our bridges and our highways and sewage treatment plans and all of that? how about investing in new energy projects and new medical advances and a cure for cancer? that's a hell of a lot more important than balancing the freakin' budget. that's the first thing wrong with this ryan budget. the second thing is that the ryan budget destroys medicare. still does. we talked about it this is the same damn budget that they passed two years ago, that they passed last year. it would shut down medicare for anybody who is not already in it, cut benefits for those who are, but shut down medicare for anybody who is not in it and replace it with a voucher. a voucher that would not even come close to buying you health care from a private insuran
for the deficit in parents. >> but then what does it say to now that we have such a lack of funding that our class sizes are too big? >> hal: i think that's a republican principled stance what they consider a socialist education system and -- and sort of a youtube paranoid nut bar wing of the republican party that think high schools and middle schools are indoctrine nation camps for liberalism. those two camps have systematically over the years defunding public education, getting rid of it. it was a talking point during the debates. it was one of the things that i think rick perry didn't forget. get rid of the energy department, the department of education. now here is the thing -- the point i'm trying to make is that an education base you can legislate class size, how many books are available, food they get to eat, but you can't force par rental connection to the child. >> but would you agree we have a parental absence crisis? >> hal: no, i don't. i think there are critical groups, and usually they are either super rich or upper rich people who ignore their children a
you need to deal with it budgets and deficits and you need to keep growth going. here is what i saw over the weekend. recession in greece which is a actually a depression if you line it up against the u.s. great depression in 1929 it looks a lot a like in terms of how much unemployment there send a how much the economy was contracted. greece is having our great depression of the late 1920s. >> wow. >>> moving on to washington now. president obama's renewed push for a grand bargain may be showing some early signs of paying off, at least with one top republican. senator bob corker of tennessee says he could envision raising tax revenue if democrats embrace big changes to medicare and social security. he is at odds with other members of his party including house speaker john boehner who is ruling out the prospect of any new taxes. >> i think, by the way, there is a chance on a deal. i know the president is saying the right things and we have an opportunity over the next four to five months. i think republicans, if they saw true entitlement reform would be glad to look at tax reform tha
austerity and budget cutting and debt and deficit and then last weekend speaker boehner admits that we don't have an immediate debt problem. wit well, we're still sort of as a collective body stuck on this idea that, you know, it's all about cuts and how many and how much when the real issue should be jobs. these budgets should be evaluated based on how many people they put to work, how many problems they solve for the american people. five years ago in my district the bridge fell into the mississippi river. our bill would fix the problems like that and make those things a thing of the past and they put a lot of people back to work, too. >> absolutely. mr. o'reilly and other republicans, they're upset because you and your caucus have offered alternatives to paul ryan's massive spending cuts. and as i say, job creation is the first item on the executive summary of your report. the first item under that is infrastructure. now, the american society of civil engineers -- and this is, you know, an engineering organization, not a political one. >> left wing cooks? >> we need $1.6 trillion spendi
, but ultimately if there's any chance at dealing with the debt and deficit, these two, very different philosophies and visions. >> early april, the president comes up with his budget recommendation. a lot of people are hoping all of this will eventually result in the grand bargain, a real deal looking down the road, everyone on board basically. a deal that would avoid, for example, having to worry about raising the debt ceiling end of july, early august. is that at all doable? >> it is possible. i wouldn't go as far as saying doable now. but what i will say, the difference in approach now versus say two years ago when they tried this and it failed and it was, you know, almost the end of the world as the u.s. bumped up against the debt ceiling, the difference is they are going through what we call in washington regular order. everything is done in the open. i think that has lead to a different atmosphere on capitol hill where people know what's going on, they're voting on measures, and they're not waiting to see the white smoke from the white house when the president and house speaker and others ar
? >> sure, i do. one problem with the baseline is it brings the deficit later on of the we looked at the budget and realized we could probably balance in five years. the problem is with the way the numbers work is it brings you back out of balance soon thereafter. what we wanted to do is have a credible plan that got us to balancing, got us into surplus. that's what our budget does. there is something unique in the baseline where deficits go down to the mid part of the next ten years and then go right back up. what we want to do is get them on a downward path and keep them down. we not only balance the budget, we go into surpluses and pay off the debt. >> brian: here is chris van hollen. he seems to disagree with everything you say. here is an example. >> i'm used to that. >> let me focus first on what our budget focuses on, which is not just economic growth in jobs in the future, but jobs in economic growth now and in the future. this republican budget is not balanced in ten years. >> brian: is he right? is it not in balance? >> no, it does balance in ten years. they're throwing
and iraq were fought as quote emergencies, which means they weren't included in the annual deficits. so, now, when they're talking about a budget that cuts student loan programs for gi members, people coming back from iraq and afghanistan now they're not getting their student loans. because this was all fought off budget. i think that's political malpractice on the part of the republican party. they should have budgeted for this. >> well, from a congressional physician of the soul like diana degette, thank you so much. now to dr. james peterson, msnbc analyst and director of africana st studies. professor, millions oppose the war, but as you know, and i'm sure you remember, their voices were significantly marginalized. give us a sense of how that happened. >> there's a lot of context here. we have to start with the fact that the sort of american ethos in response to 9/11 was a sort of patriotism, people not in line with the government and a very war hawkish administration seemed to be anti-american. so in that environment, the voices that were speaking out against this war, but in that
in that report because they really don't have an answer. they want to cut taxes and cut the deficit at the same time. those are their two agenda items. you can't do both. they are just trying to ignore it and hope it goes away. >> now, when you look at the reaction, patricia, there's no wonder they are being defeated at the polls and poll after poll shows that americans are not going their way but i think this only further drives the wedge between the american voters because people are offended when it is clear you are not even being honest with them. >> well, yeah. and i think what americans are really want is just an honest discussion of the issues and if people come at an issue and have an honest disagreement and use facts that are accurate, you can have that discussion and debate. but when you come out of a discussion with facts that are not true that "the washington post" says are four pin knock key ohios, you can't even start to talk about things in an honest way and that's why michele bachmann has gotten into so much trouble. she won her last wasn't by a point. she's a huge target for de
saying we want a lot more spending, most of it paid for by deficit this year and next. we'll see a lot of defectses from the democrat budget resolution. we saw a vote yesterday in the senate which was, you talked with stuart varney about. repealing the medical device tax. we're likely to see a lot of defects from the white house and the democratic leadership proposal to have a lot more spending in year and coming years. we saw the opening mark of that yesterday. bill: peter cottontail still on the schedule for the 1st of april. we'll bring you back and we'll continue this little discussion about what's right and what's not given the budget crunch. >> bring back the white house tours. bring back the white house tours. bring back the white house tours. there we go. bill: enjoy austin. see you soon. heather. heather: the clock is ticking as the country is on a verge of collapse. can a deal be reached before there is a i had on people's bank accounts and is this something we could see happen to your bank account? bill: also a scared homeowner, well, you won't believe what they did when a h
.s. budget deficit should be reduced by cutting spending. but 35% said they trust the democrats more. so to regain the public's trust they have done an autopsy of the 2012 campaign. the rorpt has a lot of style but not a lot of serious substance. in it the word messaging appears 77 times technology in there 42 times, and then there is the long list of things that got no mention at also. health care inequality and others. the plan also pointed to some other issues, and no bashing poor people at all. the plan says low-income americans are hardworking people who want to become hard-working middle-income americans of course paul's plan would make it harder than ever to allow poor people to join the middle class. next up, reagan. enough already. the youngin's at all don't even remember him. they also pledge to be flexible on gay rights even though republicans are spending millions defending the discriminatory defense of marriage act, and finally immigration reform and reaching out to minorities. they'll spend $10 million this year on a minority outreach program called the
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 70 (some duplicates have been removed)